INSPEC10040 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 21 • MINE ID r9 OR PROSPECTING ID r9 M-81-014 INSPECTION DATE 11/13/96 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This was a partial inspection performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of 1 12 permits. The operator was contacted about the inspection and was present for it. Due to ground conditions the currently-operated western phase was not inspected; the eastern phase which has been operated in 1996 was inspected, though it was inactive at the time of this inspection due to being late in the season. This permit area consists of several phases which, until mid-1 996, operated only one phase at a time. An amendment was approved to allow a second phase to be operated concurrently. The eastern phase mentioned above is the second one, and was opened in 1996. The reclamation costs were reviewed and the financial warranty has been appropriately increased. The items noted in the phase which was inspected include 1 , The temporary entrance which was used during the highway construction has been reclaimed. The highway r-o-w ditch has been re-established and the fence closed; the temporary structures have been removed and the operation area has been graded and topsoiled. 2, The botching facility once located in the pit has been removed. There are no other structures, equipment or debris in the pit. 3, The highwall which was created by the excavation of highway construction materials has been graded to 3:1 slopes where the highwall will not advance farther lalong the NE edge primarilyl, and are stabilized at no steeper than 2:1 elsewhere. The pit in this phase will be activated again in 1997, and there is no problem leaving 2:1 slopes here. 4, Topsoil stockpiles are present along the tops of the graded highwalls. The operator stated that in 1 997 topsoil will be replaced on all slopes which have already been, or will be, prepared to their final configurations. All piles which remain will of course be required to be stabilized, e.g. gentle slopes out of traffic areas, seeded to grass. There were several other topsoil piles around the pit perimeter, mainly along the west side where the highwall is lower. Due to muddy conditions in the pit, a close inspection of these piles was not possible, and the amount of vegetative protection on them was not able to be known. 5. There was a recent partial release of undisturbed land along the western edge of the northern part of the permit, then a subsequent addition of land to allow access to this newly openetl phase. The land swap constituted a technical revision. The new boundaries are marked at this location, but there is a new permit area entrance which has no permit ID sign. The original entrance farther down the road is adequately marked. The operator should install another permit ID sign at the new location, mainly because it is not readily apparent that the two entrances are for the same permit area. IThe two active phases are separated by the Slate Rived. 6. The new entrance road has cut through bank material and stockpiled material, including topsoil. No degradation to the topsoil nor bank instability was noted at the time of the inspection, though the slopes seem steeper than they should be. No problem is noted therefore, but the operator should monitor the condition of these areas and address them before a problem arises. 7, There is a Swale crossing the pit, which receives runoff from the landscape business to the west, in addition to runoff from the permit area itself. A ditch has been dug along the low area, which contains some water, though it was not flowing. It was obviously dug during the latter part of the 1996 season. There is a point on the ditch where equipment crosses the ditch, without benefit of a culvert. Land downstream from this pit and its ditch is within the permit boundary, and will receive runoff from this area. This water eventually flows to the Slate River. There is no problem at the present time, but the potential is present for erosion from any unstable surface to contribute sediment to the runoff which if not controlled, could become a problem. The operator said that a SWMP existed for the other phase of the permit, and its measures could possibly be implemented here. Placement of berms for settling ponds, haybales or silt fence or vegetative filter strips was discussed during the inspection. The operator stated that this aspect of the pit operation would be monitored and addressed as needed. If part of the control or discharge of runoff or process water involves use of structures, the operator must contact this Division so that such structures may become part of the permitted activity and be covered by adequate bond. The original phase was partly visible from a distance, and it was seen to contain stockpiles of gravel and topsoil, located where they have been observed in prior visits to the site. There were no problems noted at the time of the inspection, nor other items discussed.